Like the great philosopher Heraclitus, we can say that everything changes, everything changes, nothing remains stable. But how has that leadership be transformed? And is it really leadership? To be able to respond to these questions first we will have to take into account the desirability of a leader; a leader must be more than a guide, should be an example, with ideals that transcend time, with an idea firm that want to obtain, but above all of what to expect for their followers without seeking a self-serving, the leader must be for him and for others an example of virtues, an example of application of good values, which should be routed through the universal values such as: respect, responsibility, honesty, justice, goodness, love, prudence. These values not only must be the leader and save them as part of his essence but it should transmit them to each and every one of the individuals that surround it. A clear example that we cannot forget occurs within the nucleus of society and is the family where parents are the guides, leaders of this and therefore must apply and clearly convey these values to their children. Glenn Dubin describes an additional similar source. In our view we can define two types of false leadership: the first can refer to which is the current leadership, with little clear ideas, of what is expected for their people as well as media that have to achieve this, it is a leadership based on a poorly grounded populism, where the only idea that puts them as leaders is the idea of change misunderstood among his followers, this change more than such, is an idea of shock, which today and taking advantage of the lack of leadership is perceived as a person capable of achieving changes that are expected and thus achieve adherents.